Assessment of Surgical and Radiographic Parameters for Abutment Height Selection: A Prospective Study with 1-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: The "one-abutment, one-time" concept entails the placement of a definitive abutment at the time of implant placement, without removal during prosthesis manufacture, with the aim to promote a safer environment for the peri-implant tissues. Identifying surgical and radiographic parameters that can assist with the abutment height selection would facilitate the adoption of the one-abutment, one-time concept. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the role of surgical and radiographic parameters as predictive factors for abutment height selection in implant-retained single crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective study assessed the role of surgical and radiographic measurements in the implant survival and success rates and marginal bone loss in implant-retained single crowns. Implants were placed in both healed sites and extraction sockets, and the distances between the implant platform and alveolar bone crest, implant platform and gingival margin, and buccal gap (when present) were recorded using a straight periodontal probe. Digital radiographs were made at implant placement (T0), abutment height selection (Ta), and 1-year follow-up (Tf), and the distance between the implant platform and the alveolar bone crest (mm) was assessed. Linear regression models and Pearson correlation were used to assess the influence of primary and secondary outcomes on abutment height. RESULTS: A total of 130 implants were placed in 68 patients. The mean surgical distance between the bone crest and the implant platform was 1.71 ± 1.01 mm, and the mean distance from the gingival margin to the implant platform was 3.94 ± 1.90 mm, while at the abutment selection appointment, the mean transmucosal height was 3.58 ± 1.50 mm. A high linear correlation was found between the selected abutment height and two primary outcomes: the radiographic implant platform to alveolar bone crest distance at T0 (r2 = 0.66; P < .001) and the transmucosal height at Ta (r2 = 0.81; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Radiographic measurements of the distance between the implant platform and the alveolar bone crest at implant placement can serve as an important parameter to select the abutment height for definitive restorations.

A robust methodology for the quantitative assessment of the rat jawbone microstructure.

Micro-computed tomography can be applied for the assessment of the micro-architectural characteristics of the cortical and trabecular bones in either physiological or disease conditions. However, reports often lack a detailed description of the methodological steps used to analyse these images, such as the volumes of interest, the algorithms used for image filtration, the approach used for image segmentation, and the bone parameters quantified, thereby making it difficult to compare or reproduce the studies. This study addresses this critical need and aims to provide standardized assessment and consistent parameter reporting related to quantitative jawbone image analysis. Various regions of the rat jawbones were screened for their potential for standardized micro-computed tomography analysis. Furthermore, the volumes of interest that were anticipated to be most susceptible to bone structural changes in response to experimental interventions were defined. In the mandible, two volumes of interest were selected, namely, the condyle and the trabecular bone surrounding the three molars. In the maxilla, the maxillary tuberosity region and the inter-radicular septum of the second molar were considered as volumes of interest. The presented protocol provides a standardized and reproducible methodology for the analysis of relevant jawbone volumes of interest and is intended to ensure global, accurate, and consistent reporting of its morphometry. Furthermore, the proposed methodology has potential, as a variety of rodent animal models would benefit from its implementation.

Implantes, componentes e os honorários profissionais: o que agrega mais no custo final da Implantodontia? Análise de custos entre seis marcas comercialmente disponíveis no Brasil / Dental implants, components, and professional fees: what is most signifi cant factor in the overall cost of Brazilian implant dentistry? A cost analysis among six different commercially available brands

Objetivo: sistematizar e organizar o conjunto de informações relacionadas ao planejamento e manejo de custos na área de Implantodontia. Material e métodos: uma reabilitação mandibular (prótese total implantorretida com carregamento imediato e ancorada por cinco implantes) foi utilizada como referência para custos. Para determinação do valor total, foram somados os honorários e os custos do profissional com o consultório, com componentes cirúrgicos e protéticos para execução do caso, além dos custos laboratoriais. O custo total foi acrescido em 20% devido à taxa de risco do tratamento. Seis marcas comerciais foram selecionadas para realização dos orçamentos. Os valores de todos os componentes em moda corrente (Reais) foram expostos baseados em um denominador comum (X). Ainda, as porcentagens de custo de cada componente segundo o tipo de cilindro selecionado também foram descritas. Resultados: o valor do tratamento conforme o sistema de implantes variou entre 64,4 X e 209,6 X. No custo fi nal, a variação ficou entre 243,1 X e 441,4 X. Conclusão: embora este trabalho não tenha englobado no custo as sessões de retorno para acompanhamento e higienização, fratura de pilares protéticos e parafusos, perda de implantes e a fratura de dentes artificiais, a maior variação nos valores do tratamento refere-se aos sistemas de implantes selecionados. Entretanto, o uso de cilindros calcináveis ou de cilindros com base metálica não interferiu significativamente no custo total, o que favorece a postura clínica de utilizar componentes com partes pré-fabricadas para aliviar os problemas biológicos na interface implante/prótese.

Objective: to organize the information related to treatment and cost management for Implant Dentistry. Material and methods: a mandibular restoration (a five implant-retained prosthesis under immediate loading) was used as reference for cost analysis. To determine the overall value, professional, surgical, prosthetic component, and laboratory costs were added. The overall cost was increased in 20% due to the treatment risk. Six different commercial manufacturers were selected to present the costs. The values in the real currency (BRL) were converted to a common denominator (X). Also, the cost percentages associated to each prosthetic cylinder were also described. Results: the overall treatment value according to each implant system ranged from 64.4 X to 209.6 X. For the overall cost, the variation was between 243.1 and 44.1 X. Conclusion: although recall sessions have not been included in this paper (e.g. hygiene maintenance, abutment screw fracture/ loosening, implant loss, and artifi cial tooth fracture events), the great cost variation relates to the choice of the dental implant system. However, the use of pre-fabricated or plastic burnout cylinders did not signifi cantly interfere in the overall cost, which favors the use of pre-fabricated parts to alleviate the biological issues at the implant-prosthesis interface.